George Brandis is up for re-election in 2016

Alas, Mr Brandis is now purportedly leaning away from a total repeal of section 18C. Recall that this section has four triggers that undercut free speech. Those triggers are the words ‘insult’, ‘offend’, ‘humiliate’ and ‘intimidate’. These give people prepared to go to court plenty of ammunition to silence others whose criticisms they dislike (think Andrew Bolt here or Mark Steyn in Canada, where similar laws existed).

Don’t want to peck or be horrible about this, but a promise is a promise.

What the government intends to do is to reform the legislation so that it is more respectful of freedom of speech.

I am going to a great deal of trouble to ensure that I do engage significant community leaders in discussing the best way of achieving the balances between the protection of racial minorities from unacceptable forms of conduct on the one hand and protecting the freedom of Australians to express opinions, including unpopular opinions or divisive opinions, which is part of the lifeblood of a healthy democracy.

– Brandis, Hansard, 18 November 2013

Backdowns do not come more humiliating than this. Throughout most of 2012 the former Attorney-General, Ms Nicola Roxon, described the anti-discrimination bill as one of the government’s signature pieces of human rights legislation. It was the centrepiece of her social engineering—her ambitions to turn Australia into a nanny state, governed by political correctness, in which the government would decide what it was appropriate for people to say. That is what Ms Roxon said again and again: ‘We will decide what is appropriate.’

We in the opposition saw that for what it was: part of a front in the war that the Gillard government has waged against freedom of speech. The attack on freedom of speech can sometimes be frontal but sometimes, equally insidiously, it can be subtle.

THE repeal of the “Andrew Bolt” provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act that make it unlawful to offend and insult people because of their race will be the subject of the first legislation Attorney-General George Brandis will introduce to parliament.

The repeal, which will honour an election promise, will change the definition of racial vilification to eliminate at least two of the grounds that were used against the conservative columnist over articles about light-skinned Aboriginal people.

Before the election, Senator Brandis had promised to amend Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act so speech that is found to be offensive and insulting is no longer defined as racial vilification.

“You cannot have a situation in a liberal democracy in which the expression of an opinion is rendered unlawful because somebody else . . . finds it offensive or insulting,” he said.

Another threat to freedom of speech in Australia is the operation of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits statements that “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” another person or a group of people on grounds of race or ethnicity.

At the time of its introduction, oblivious to its Orwellian overtones, the then minister, Nick Bolkus, said that it was designed to prohibit “speechcrime” over and above the traditional tort of defamation.

Making the likelihood of causing offence to a group the test of acceptable behaviour is a much more onerous restriction than bringing a particular victim into hatred, ridicule or contempt.

Let’s be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a “hurt feelings” test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours.
…

The Libs never fail to disappoint. Starting with Campbell Newman’s government in 2015, there needs to be a message sent that Lib support isn’t as strong as you might expect when they don’t deliver. Or worse, when you deliver stuff that you shouldn’t have.

I was talking to a guy at work today as he bagged out the Lib Dems. When questioned on single issues he opposed the Paid Parental Leave scheme vehemently, he didn’t think we needed to ‘have a discussion’ about changing the constitution, he wasn’t happy with Newman’s bikie laws , he was disappointed the Libs may fail to repeal 18C of the RDA.. The only thing he was particularly happy about was stopping the boats, and he thought the Libs had shown some good leadership on stopping subsidies to the car industry but overall weren’t sufficiently pro-business especially with regards to red tape. For him, that was enough to be a Liberal supporter. It’s no wonder Australians – and the western world generally – are jaded about what politics does for them.

Let’s be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable

I don’t believe this to be the case. If six african youths had been intimidated, there may well not have been a rape the other night.

There are clear cases where insult, humiliation and even intimidation are not only appropriate but necessary for the maintenance of healthy culture.

I think that people here have stopped seeing the forest for the trees. If your only aim is to see 18C repealed, you have missed the point. The entire legislation is appropriate only for the government and government agents.

Discrimination maintains culture. Anti-discrimination legislation is the primary tool being used for neutering Australian culture to ensure that other cultures are able to become established rather than integrated. It is an unmitigated wrong.

Once the proscribers of thought were able to run their politics beyond defamation and ban “holocaust denial” speech anything was possible. The pathetic anti semites should have been continually demolished through derision and historical fact……..but we had to criminalise them. That led straight to S18.

I am going to a great deal of trouble to ensure that I do engage significant community leaders in discussing the best way of achieving the balances between the protection of racial minorities from unacceptable forms of conduct on the one hand and protecting the freedom of Australians to express opinions

Is it good politics or just a complete lack of conviction. The coalition will never remain in power, the right and conservative moment are bit players in the media, entertainment, schools, universities, welfare, social groups, lobby groups, the courts, the public service, in fact they have pretty much lost every culture war going. There is however one thing thing they can count on, the complete inability of the left to run anything remotely successfully partly because of complete incompetence and partly because their politics inevitably lead to shit outcomes.

So Brandis, Abbott and co make your time count. Do the right thing, forget the votes, forget the inevatable media attacks and implement some real positive changes for the country. Napthine, O’Farrell and Newman are quickly becoming forgotten figures of history and when Labor get back into power there will be no evidence at all that they ever existed.

P.S I think the first thing a coalition government should do when coming into power is remove any and all changes made by Labor.

I know it is unwritten policy to bag everything the government of the day does on this site, but surely a feeling in Jim Allen’s waters about what Brandis may or may not do regarding the odious 18 c is not a good enough reason to have Brandis head on a pike just yet. The election was in September, people. Brandis has been involved in multiple things, including the legals behind stopping the boats, setting up a Royal commission into the ALP/union mafia ring etc. I reckon you might just hold your horses.

But since he’s coming up for re-election, Rabz, why don’t you nominate for the senate?

But since he’s coming up for re-election, Rabz, why don’t you nominate for the senate?

lem – what would be the point?

I’ve considered joining the Liberals (my father was a founding member) but they are simply too expedient for my liking. They don’t stand for anything. I also profoundly disagree with several of the LDP’s policies (if you could dignify them with that title).

I’ll have to stick to giving not so gorgeous George a piece of my mind whenever I have the misfortune of encountering the odious li’l grub in person.

Every other party seems to push a variant of Socialism – or straight out Communism when you consider the Greens.

It’s why I’ve never joined a political party – none of them ever seem to really want to protect our culture, and even the ‘Clayton Conservatives’ in the L/NP are pretty half-hearted about putting Australia and Australians first in all matters.

There are a few true Conservatives, but they seem to get squashed/sat on by their own parties when they have the temerity to speak out.

I think that if a true Conservative party ever got going here in Australia they might find themselves surprised by the level of support they’d get from the wider ‘pissed-off-with-the-current-crop’ Aussie community.

i have been saying for years ,Ausrralia has been “governed” by the untidy nations loving Green National Laboral Party ,talk about Tweedle Dum and Tweerle Dee ,we have had Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber..Start a Real Conservative Party,which could eliminate paid politicians and political Aparatchiks eliminate the law trade only fund universities to teach real subjectsm,medicine,engineering and real science.retrai teachers and sack the political ones Totally Reform Migration ,wher we export moslems ,africans and left wingers,and cutthe number of governments and public servants,just for astart ,and of course alpbc and sbs gone farever.

He’s also bringing back an Internet filter – this one even worse than Conroy’s – requiring ISPs to block torrent sites, etc – and have a “graduated” system where people have their accounts suspended.

The Abbott government is considering a major crackdown on online piracy, including forcing internet service providers to block websites that allow users to illegally stream or download movies, music and television shows.

The federal government is also considering implementing a “graduated response scheme” that could lead to consumers’ internet accounts being temporarily suspended if they ignore notifications to stop downloading illegal content.

The Abbott government is considering a major crackdown on online piracy, including forcing internet service providers to block websites that allow users to illegally stream or download movies, music and television shows.

whatever happened to arresting people who break the law? I know it’s a novel concept.
Rather than ‘blocking’ sites to remove the temptation of engaging in illegal activity, if people are pirating stuff illegally, go and arrest them!

Brandis could start doing that tomorrow. No need for new legislation or big-brother style internet filters; he could just start actually enforcing the law.
Shut down all those piracy parties for example where people swap massive files. Those things are such blatant criminality.

It was going on in Sydney when I was living there 4 years ago.
But whatever. IP Piracy is a crime.
This whole thing about progressively closing the accounts and whatnot is bullshit.
If you’ve got a law, enforce it.
But they won’t because they’re scared of upsetting people.

If the governments ever do decide to enforce all the hundreds and thousands of laws on the books, it’ll need enforcement squads.
Which could work out nicely for the armies of Africans it’s
been bringing into the country from refugee camps for the last many years.

The piracy thing is rampant lawlessness.
It’s like this. If I own a TV station and I have a business model – I’m going to pay shitloads of money to actors and directors and film makers to make TV shows and movies, and then charge people a fee to see those movies – then it totally fucks me up the arse when these wankers just put my hard-crafted product on some website in Scandinavia so everyone can download it all for free.

Bolt and his type are no different to the city latte set they criticise. When I was growing up in the North you got snotted if you caused offence. Thereafter you showed some respect for people with whom you had nothing much in common but had to work with. If somebody racially insults me, by extension you insult my wife and kids. If Bolt wants the legal right to do this then fine, the Govt should give me back my right to snot him. That used to be the Australian way. Jeez i remember getting reefed just for insulting a petmeater’s blades. Good job I didn’t use my free speech and call his dog a mongrel, even though it was. Bolt wouldn’t last five ticks on a rig or mining camp.

No need for new legislation or big-brother style internet filters; he could just start actually enforcing the law.

He could, but then the citizens would see the Copyright industry for what it is: a bunch of bullies, trying to forever extend their property: 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc. Each time without Democratic approval.

“I firmly believe the fundamental principles of copyright law, the protection of rights of creators and owners did not change with the advent of the internet and they will not change with the invention of new technologies.”

Fair.

He described the Copyright Act as “overly long, unnecessarily complex, often comically outdated and all too often, in its administration, pointlessly bureaucratic”.

So fix the legislation and make your fed coppers enforce it you indolent prick.

For the last time, it is not the responsibility of an ISP to do your policing for you Brandish.

Liberty Quotes

The Rudd government and Gillard governments have extremely impressive records. In fact in 2012 we’ve had the second most pages of legislation passed in Commonwealth parliamentary history, and this is despite a supposedly unworkable hung parliament. … Both Rudd and Gillard are good communicators. Rudd was an excellent communicator with the public and Gillard was better within the parliament and caucus.— Bronwyn Hinz